Andhra Pradesh High Court
CRLP/8070/2026 of Gadde Bala Yeswanth Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh on 10 September 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3504] FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8070/2026 Between: 1. GADDE BALA YESWANTH, S/O GADDE RAM MOHAN RAO,AGED ABOUT 42
APHC010479082026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
AT AMARAVATI
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE 11th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8070/2026
Between:
1. GADDE BALA YESWANTH, S/O GADDE RAM MOHAN RAO,AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,
OCC
SOFTWARE
ENGINEER,R/O.
9,
BLANSHARDS LANE, NORTH CAVE,HU15 2LN, UNITED KINGDOM.
2. GADDE RAM MOHAN RAO, S/O. MASTAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 62
YEARS,R/O. COURT ROAD, BANK COLONY,CHILAKALURIPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.
3. GADDE ARUNAKUMARI, W/O. GADDE RAM MOHAN RAO, AGED
ABOUT
YEARS,R/O.
COURT
ROAD,
BANK
COLONY,CHILAKALURIPET, PALNADU DISTRICT.
4. GADDE SOMANTH, S/O RAM MOHAN RAO, AGED ABOUT 33
YEARS,R/O FLAT NO. 3253, NORWOOD, PRESTIGE SUNRISE
PARK,ELECTRONIC CITY, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA
5. J B NANDINI, W/O SOMANTH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,R/O FLAT
NO. 3253, NORWOOD, PRESTIGE SUNRISE PARK,ELECTRONIC
CITY, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.
...PETITIONER/ACCUSED(S)
AND
1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, THROUGH STATION HOUSE
OFFICER,PATTABHIPURAM
POLICE
STATION,
GUNTUR
DISHICT.REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,HIGH COURT
OF ANDHRA PRADESH, AMARAVATI.
2. GADDE KEERTHI, W/O BALA YASWANTH, AGED ABOUT 39
YEARS,R/O
FLAT
NO.
3A,
UVS
GRAND
APARTMENT,
O
LINE,VIJAYAPURI COLONY, GUNTUR TOWN, GUNTUR DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S):
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court pleased to quash the proceedings in D.V.C. No. 268 of 2025
on the file of the learned Special judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Guntur, and consequently discharge the Petitioners from the said proceedings; and pass IA NO: 1 OF 2026
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to dispense with the filing of the certified copy of the proceedings/application in D.V.C. No. 268 of 2025, now pending on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Guntur, and permit the Petitioners to rely upon the photocopy/Xerox copy filed along with the accompanying Criminal Petition, pending consideration of the said Criminal Petition, and pass IA NO: 2 OF 2026
Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition,the High Court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in stay all further proceedings in D.V.C. No. 268 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Guntur, pending disposal of the above Criminal Petition, and pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused(S):
1. KUNUKU RAJA SEKHAR
Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S):
1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8070 of 2026
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:-
Instant Criminal Petition, under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, has been filed on behalf of the petitioners herein, seeking to quash the proceedings in DVC No.268 of 2025 on the file of the learned Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Guntur, claiming reliefs under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor appearing on behalf of respondent No.2-State.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, after arguing for some time, has confined his argument to the extent of dispensing with the presence of the petitioners before the trial Court by submitting petitioners’ practical constraints in attending before the trial Court and states that petitioners shall not dispute their identity at a later stage of proceedings.
4. On the other hand, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor contended that specific accusations have been made as against the petitioners herein and truth or otherwise of the said accusations has to be decided during the course of trial, hence, there are no grounds to quash the proceedings at this stage.
So far as dispensing with the presence of the petitioners, before the trial Court, he has not opposed the same.
5. Since there are specific accusations that have been made as against the petitioners herein, which are all disputed questions of fact, the same can be decided during the course of trial, and this Court, in a petition filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 corresponding to Section 482 Cr.P.C., would not be in a position to conduct roving enquiry into the disputed questions of fact and quash the proceedings at this stage.
6. In this context, it is apt to note the dictum held in State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Akhil Sharda and Others1, by the Apex Court in its vivid terms in the following way:
7. Having gone through the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court by which the High Court has set aside the criminal proceedings in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., it appears that the High Court has virtually conducted a mini trial, which as such is not permissible at this stage and while deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. As observed and held by this Court in a catena of decisions no mini trial can be conducted by the High Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C., jurisdiction and at the stage of deciding the application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court cannot get into appreciation of evidence of the particular case being considered.
7. In Vishal Shah Vs. Monalisha Gupta & Ors.2, Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that there is no requirement for the personal appearance of any 1 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 594
party in the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences, except when there is a breach of a protection order, which is the only offence provided under Section 31 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to quash the proceedings against the petitioners herein. However, due to ground realities submitted by the counsel for the petitioners, presence of the petitioners herein (Respondent Nos.1 to 5) before the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for Mobile Court, Guntur, in DVC No.268 of 2025 is hereby dispensed with, except on those dates when the learned trial Court feels that their presence is necessary. In the event of failure of the petitioners to appear when the trial Court specifically directs, this Order shall stands automatically revoked, without recourse to this Court.
9. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is disposed of.
10. Needless to state that the petitioners are at liberty to raise all the grounds before the trial Court.
As a sequel, all pending applications shall stand closed.
____________________________________
JUSTICE MAHESWARA RAO KUNCHEAM Date: 11.09.2026 RMR
2 2025 Live Law (SC) 240
CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 8070 of 2026 11.09.2026
W RMR